Nerves apparently abound in Number 10 Downing Street as to how far Kenneth Clarke is going to take his “rehabilitation revolution”. Backbench critics are already warning that imprisonment must stay central to any penal policy. They are still pushing the “prison works” mantra of Michael Howard from the early 1990s. Naysayers insist that such radical reform can never be achieved. But I, for one, would just like to sit back and reflect on Clarke’s bravery and this landmark moment for penal policy.
The Justice Secretary’s comments are mature and frank compared to the mindless rhetoric of some previous Home and Justice Secretaries. The criminal justice arms race in which politicians have long been engaged needs to end. It is time for a common sense approach. The “tough on crime” rhetoric that our politicians pander to has simply made the public feel increasingly less safe. It has driven the system into costly and undeliverable cul-de-sacs. These include the indeterminate sentence for public protection, which has led to thousands of prisoners now being stranded in jails without access to the courses they need to prove they can be released.
Nowhere have the initiatives of the previous Labour administration been more damaging than criminal justice, where, as Clarke remarked, Home Secretaries David Blunkett and John Reid acted is if they had a chequebook in one hand and a copy of the Daily Mail in the other. The prison population has doubled since Ken Clarke was Home Secretary in the early 1990s and its restless expansion shows no signs of stopping. This simply isn’t affordable. Throwing more and more people in jail for minor offences makes no economic sense, given that re-offending rates for those serving short prison sentences are double that of those on community orders, which cost a tenth of the price and tackle the underlying causes of crime.
Short custodial sentences are a costly and wasteful response to complex human problems that need solving. Upon arrival, prisoners on short sentences are handed their induction papers along with their release forms.
Nothing constructive can happen when a prisoner lies on a squalid bunk bed for three weeks. By contrast, community sentences force offenders to make amends for their wrongdoing and have a success rate of two thirds.
Short prison sentences are long enough to cause immediate disruption and long-term damage. People can lose their jobs and homes and have their children taken away from them.
Prison sentences should be reserved for those committing serious and dangerous crimes. Happily, Clarke would appear to agree with this assessment. Further, not only is this a radical, progressive agenda for the criminal justice sector, but it can also cut waste and – more importantly – costs, too. It is entirely possible to save money in our bloated penal system and still deliver the holy grail, which can be summed up by the slogan of the Howard League for Penal Reform: “Less crime, safer communities, fewer people in prison”.
Those who claim that is impossible to achieve all three are simply wrong. The Howard League has pointed out that Britain’s coalition Government can take heart from the experience of Canada in the 1990s, where 20 per cent cuts to public spending forced the government to reduce the prison population by 11 per cent. At the same time, crime fell in Canada over the decade by as much as 23 per cent for assault and robbery to 43 per cent for murder.
Radical change, including the closing down of prisons, will be required to fund reforms that invest in the community. The road ahead is long. But at least we are now being signposted in the right direction.
David Wilson is professor of criminology and criminal justice at Birmingham City University and chair of the Commission on English Prisons Today
